1020 N BROADWAY EVCC STUDENT HOUSING - WHOLE SITE 2022-05-23

WAC 197-I1-330. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-330(3), in determining an impact's significance the responsible official must take into account the following (among other considerations): that the same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another location; that several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact; and whether a proposal may to a significant degree: (i) Adversely affect environmentally sensitive or special areas, such as loss or destruction of historic, scientific, and cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or wilderness; (ii) Adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat; [and/or] (iii) Conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment; .... The lead agency must make its threshold determination "based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal." WAC 197-11-335. For an environmental threshold determination to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that "environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA," and that the decision to issue a MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Pease Hill Community Group v. City of Spokane, 62 Wash.App. 800, 810 (1991). Clear error is the standard of review applicable to substantive decisions under SEPA. Cougar Mt. Assocs. v. King City, 111 Wn.2d 742, 747 (1988). The determination by the governmental agency is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing tribunal is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. at 747 (quoting Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69 (1978)). The burden of proof is on the Appellant to show that the proposal will have probable, significant adverse environmental impacts. Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719 (2002). The procedural determination of the City's Responsible Official shall be accorded substantial weight in appeals. EMC 15.24.310.F; RCW 43.21 C.075(3)(d); RCW 43.21 C.090. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zone. The zoning code doesn't acknowledge student housing as a land use distinct from multifamily apartment buildings, which are allowed outright in the BMU zone. The City's practice of considering the Master Plan as a general guide for future development binding on the institution and the City and not on private developers is consistent with the plain language of EMC 19.33B.060. The purpose of an institutional overlay zone is to create additional flexibility for the institution to develop uses and designs not allowed in the underlying zoning, not to regulate private development on privately owned parcels within the Overlay. Considering the three projects previously approved on private property within the Overlay in the immediate vicinity, this interpretation is consistently applied in the instant Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # 15-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013 Everett Hearing Examiner page 29 of 32